An Application of Rasch Analysis to the Measurement of Communicative Functioning

Doyle, Patrick J.; Hula, William D.; McNeil, Malcolm R.; Mikolic, Joseph M.; Matthews, Christine

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/098)

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Evaluation Of Instruments For Communicative Participationmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Using these criteria, items such as "listening to the radio" or "watching television" also would not be considered communicative participation because there is no communicative exchange between two communicative partners and there is no opportunity for a response. The criteria used to create this definition were consistent with recent data which suggest that items related to the use of written communication (e.g., "Write your name") on instruments of communicative functioning appear to be measuring different constructs than other communication items (Doyle, Hula, McNeil, Mikolic, & Matthews, 2005).In order to assess how adequately current instruments measured the breadth of communicative participation, all items considered communicative participation were then classified into domains outlined in Table 1. For example, an item might include communication related to a specific task such as making an appointment, or it might be to maintain a relationship and enjoy a social situation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In addition, instruments developed or scored using IRT methodology have been found to be more responsive to treatment than those developed using classical test theory (Kosinski, Bjorner, Ware, Batenhorst, & Cady, 2003). These issues should be the focus of future research efforts if we are to develop measures of communicative participation to demonstrate the effectiveness of our interventions (Donovan, Rosenbek, Ketterson, & Velozo, in press;Doyle et al, 2005).…”

Section: Stabilization Of Terminology and Conceptual Framework-instrumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring Communicative Participation: A Review of Self-Report Instruments in Speech-Language Pathology

Eadie

Yorkston

Klasner

et al. 2006

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

208

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To assess the adequacy of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology for measuring a construct called communicative participation.Method-Six instruments were evaluated relative to (a) the construct measured, (b) the relevance of individual items to communicative participation, and (c) their psychometric properties.Results-No instrument exclusively measured communicative participation. Twenty-six percent (n = 34) of all items (N = 132) across the reviewed instruments were consistent with communicative participation. The majority (76%) of the 34 items were associated with general communication, while the remaining 24% of the items were associated with communication at work, during leisure, or for establishing relationships. Instruments varied relative to psychometric properties.Conclusions-No existing self-report instruments in speech-language pathology were found to be solely dedicated to measuring communicative participation. Developing an instrument for measuring communicative participation is essential for meeting the requirements of our scope of practice. WHO, 2001). The purpose of the ICF is to offer clinical providers a common language for describing human functioning and disability, as well as to provide a conceptual framework for gathering data and measuring clinical outcomes. The ICF framework also is useful for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) for describing the consequences of communication disorders at several levels, including communication in social settings. 1 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe ICF defines a person's functioning and disability in relation to health condition and contextual factors. It has three levels: (a) "Body Functions and Structures," which include the physiological functions of body systems or anatomical elements such as organs, limbs, and their components; (b) "Activities," which are the execution of specific actions; and (c) "Participation," which encompasses involvement in life situations (WHO, 2001). It is well recognized that difficulties in body functions and structures ("Impairments") are the most studied outcomes in communication disorders (Eadie, 2001;Threats, 2000). Impairment measures of speech, language, voice, and fluency include measures of articulatory accuracy, grammatical complexity of language, physiological functioning of the vocal folds, and number of disfluencies, to name but a few. Although many instruments exist at the level of body functions and structures, there is a paucity of instruments as performance challenges become less "biomedical" in nature (Eadie, 2001;Simmons-Mackie, Threats, & Kagan, 2005). This is related to the nature of the problem. That is, it is easier to measure the regularity of vocal fold movement, the accuracy of naming objects, or the percentage of words understood by a listener than it is to measure an individual's ability to participate in valued activities or situations such as negotiating a medical plan with a physician, applying for a job, or persuad...

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Instruments For Communicative Participationmentioning

confidence: 62%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Stabilization Of Terminology and Conceptual Framework-instrumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Communicative Participation: A Review of Self-Report Instruments in Speech-Language Pathology

Eadie

Yorkston

Klasner

et al. 2006

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

208

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were 13 items from Doyle and colleagues (Doyle, Hula, McNeil, Mikolic, & Matthews, 2005) whose content matched or nearly matched items in the 166-item pool that served as the stimuli in the present investigation. The items, their location estimates, and mean log ME ratings are presented in Table 2.…”

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 There were 9 items from the ASHA-FACS for whom Donovan and colleagues (2006) provided location estimates whose content overlapped appreciably with 14 Item content, IRT-derived difficulty values, and log ME ratings for the 20 physical functioning items. Item content and IRT-derived difficulty values for 13 communicative functioning items taken from Doyle et al (2005), and 13 matching items taken from the Doyle et al (2008) item pool and their average log ME ratings. Figure 2.…”

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A preliminary evaluation of the reliability and validity of a self‐reported communicative functioning item pool

Hula

Doyle

2009

Aphasiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Item banking, an approach to test development based in item response theory (IRT), is beginning to be applied to the measurement of communicative functioning in aphasia. This approach involves calibrating a set of test items responding to a particular latent trait to a common measurement scale. One method for validating such scales is to examine the degree to which obtained item calibration estimates agree with a priori item rankings based on theory or expert opinion. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of magnitude estimation (ME) procedures for validating item banks containing self-reported functional performance items, and to make a preliminary analysis of the validity of a proposed item pool for measuring self-reported communicative functioning in aphasia. Methods & Procedures:A total of 14 raters made ME ratings of physical and communicative functioning items. These ratings were evaluated for their intra and interobserver reliability and, for subsets of the items, their correspondence with previously published IRT calibration estimates was also evaluated. Outcomes & Results: Intra-rater reliability was moderate to high, and inter-rater reliability was high. Correspondence with IRT calibrations was high for physical items, and moderate for communication items. The distribution of ME ratings for the communication items was negatively skewed. Conclusions: ME procedures have utility for investigating the validity of functional performance items. The results suggest that communicative functioning may have a more complex latent structure than physical functioning, and that the proposed item pool might benefit from the inclusion of additional items at the lower end of the scale.

show abstract

Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia

Doyle

Hula

et al. 2012

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An Application of Rasch Analysis to the Measurement of Communicative Functioning

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Measuring Communicative Participation: A Review of Self-Report Instruments in Speech-Language Pathology

Measuring Communicative Participation: A Review of Self-Report Instruments in Speech-Language Pathology

A preliminary evaluation of the reliability and validity of a self‐reported communicative functioning item pool

Self- and surrogate-reported communication functioning in aphasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About